An appointed official's pay scale cannot be modified without adherence to principles of natural justice and without the official's consent.

N. NAGARESH, J.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala and retired as Secretary, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P11 and to declare that the petitioner is eligible to get the salary benefits of District Judge with admissible DA, CCA and HRA as per Ext.P1 for the period from 01.09.2001 to 14.11.2008 with 9% interest.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Secretary in the office of the Bar Council of Kerala on 05.10.1998. The appointment was after a due process of selection. When the incumbent Secretary retired on superannuation, the petitioner was appointed as Secretary on 14.01.2000. By Ext.P1 Resolution, the Bar Council of Kerala resolved that the Secretary be paid the scale of a District Judge with admissible DA, HRA and CCA from time to time with effect from 14.01.2000.

3. The petitioner states that the probation of the petitioner expired on 13.07.2000, though it was declared so only on 22.03.2001. Subsequently, the Executive Committee of the Bar Council met on 19.08.2001 proposed modification in the pay scale of the Secretary. The modification was done without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting to continue to pay salary as per Ext.P1 Resolution.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was appointed as Judicial Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal on 05.11.2008. The petitioner submitted his resignation from the post of Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala on 06.11.2008. The petitioner was relieved from the duties of the Secretary on 14.11.2008. Even thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations to pay him arrears of salary treating the admissible pay scale as that of District Judge.

5. The former Secretary of the Bar Council had filed W.P.(C) No.29356/2008. This Court, by judgment dated 10.11.2009, directed the respondents to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner. In W.A. No.2788/2009, a Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner therein could not claim the benefits demanded as a matter of right. The writ appeal was, however, disposed of recording the consensus arrived at between the parties and directing the Bar Council to make payment of ₹1,47,266/- to the petitioner within a period of two weeks, as per Ext.P12 judgment.

6. The petitioner states that Ext.P12 judgment will not apply to the case of the petitioner since in the petitioner's case, there is a clear promise that salary of the District Judge would be paid to the petitioner. The said salary was paid for nearly 21 months. Therefore, the salary cannot be revised downwards.

7. The respondents resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The respondents states that the issue raised by the petitioner is covered against the petitioner as per Ext.P12 judgment. The petitioner has not produced any appointment order assuring him the scale of pay of District Judge. As per Rule Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, the scale of pay of the Secretary and staff shall be decided by the Bar Council from time to time. There is no automatic revision of pay scales based on Government Orders or any parity with the pay scale applicable to Judicial Officers.

8. Ext.P15 is a self serving document and has no legal sanctity. The conditions of service of the petitioner will be governed by the terms of appointment and statutory/service rules. The Bar Council of Kerala is vested with the exclusive authority to determine and regulate the service condition, including pay and allowances of its employees.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 3. I have also heard the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent.

10. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 order of the Bar Council of Kerala whereby the request of the petitioner for payment of agreed salary stands rejected. There is no dispute about the fact